Just as Win 8 is pretty much Win 7 with a new (optional) interface, I'm sure Win 9 will be more of the same.
I don't really get excited with built-up anticipation over OS releases. Once the preview gets released, I will be one of those that download it on the first day and install it in a VM to see what it's like and start learning about it. I probably won't install it on a physical machine unless it really wows me.
backup ( I don't wanna re-install from scratch again).
Although I always anticipated the "next OS" since 95, I wasn't around online for the 7 to 8 anticipation for I was busy with life and a business using 7. I ran into an article that 8RP was available, so I got curious and went to the Windows site. There it was. Next question was to make sure about dual booting, so I searched online and found a few sites, but Brink's tutorial was the most comprehensive. It wasn't too long afterwards that I joined 8F. The rest is history.
Windows 9 has got to be the most anticipated OS yet because of the vast changes of 8 and 8.1. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm really wondering which direction MS is going to take > Desktop vs Modern/Metro. I'm thinking everything will be ported to Modern/Metro except for the Desktop app/portal. We shall see.
We will either scream or jump for joy.
I think that MS realizes that 8 was not that well received and that 9 will be more l ike 7.
I say, put Metro on the Surface/RT stuff, and leave Explorer for desktops and notebooks. Yes there are some that stubbornly want both on each, but they just shouldn't have let that happen because it just leads to a disorganized product. Now, those that want Explorer on Windows RT, and want Metro on the desktop are going to make it hard to put the Genie back in the bottle. Whereas if Metro fans had never been exposed to Metro on the PC platform in the first place, I don't think they would have missed it.
Microsoft has had this insatiable need to have Windows on all devices with a common interface, because they think users want that consistency. It's time that they learn: they don't! A user may have Android on his phone, a ChromeBook and Windows on his desktop. Or maybe they have an iPad, Windows on a notebook, and a Mac desktop. Users are more flexible than we give them credit for.
In fact, Apple has figured this out. Even if you were to shell out for an entire lineup of Apple products, it's not like its OS X everywhere. iOS is for mobile devices, and OS X for Intel devices. They realize different products are suited to different things.
Last edited by Jody Thornton; 04 Sep 2014 at 08:15.
My first real anticipated release was OS/2 Warp 3.0. I was already running v2.1 and heard that v3.0 was going to drop memory requirements and snazz up the interface. 1994 and 1995 were good years for OS/2, and I was even excited about the Merlin Beta. But the requirements for the finished OS/2 Warp 4.0 were more inline with NT, and you couldn't run the new Win32 apps. So I bailed and moved over to Windows.
I anticipated Windows 95 throughout the Chicago project, and really liked the look of the interface. I finally switched over to Windows 95 in mid 1996, and I admit that it ran really well. Mind you, I was still running 16-bit apps for the most part, so I wasn't really putting the system through it's paces. I also really like Windows NT 4.0 as a server platform, but no USB provisions made it hard to use by the late 90s.
At first I thought I was going to hate Windows 98 because of the new Active Desktop update. But hardware improved and kept up with its heavy requirements. But it did run most apps better than Windows 95 SR2 (especially multimedia).
My favourite version of Windows though was Windows 2000 Professional. It was soooooooo stable. I only moved over to Windows XP in 2007, because I bought a used HP xw6000 machine, which I was going to format and install Windows 2000 on. But XP ran so well with it, that I stayed. I wish I had adopted the x64 version of XP sooner than 2011, because it was also a dream to run on HP Workstations.
I initally was excited about Longhorn because of the journalized file system. It sounded cool (but to be honest, I usually disable indexing since I don't search intensively so I would likely have hated it). Anyway, Vista ran horribly on 512 mb notebooks coming out then, so I avoided. Post April of this year, I now run Vista, and I love it.
So I am looking forward to what Windows 9 will bring. I think my interests around this have more to do with the path that Microsoft takes as a corporation to try and recover from Windows 8. So I'm interested to see what Windows 9 will include. If I try the Preview Release and it doesn't bring that much to the desktop world though, I'll move to Windows 8.1 when Vista support runs out.